but it can be the case that the consequences are not severe enough. It can also be the case that there wasn't enough time to think about the consequences or the consequences weren't part of the information used in making the decision to act.

None of this takes away from the argument that I have made in that knowledge, or maybe a more accurate word would be "prediction", of consequences influences one's decisions and actions. After all, we could make decisions with anticipated consequences that would have never happened.

So what you are saying is that you would make the same decision if you weren't aware of the negative consequences as you would have if you were aware of the negative consequences that would follow your act? — Harry Hindu


That all depends on the situation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you provide an example where what I said wouldn't apply?

Sorry to disappoint you, but I would have thought of that before planning the practical joke, and I would already be prepared for the likelihood that my best friend would no longer be my best friend if I carried out the action. So no, it wouldn't cause me to rethink, because it would just be a statement of what I already thought. — Metaphysician Undercover

LOL! You didn't disappoint me at all, MU. You finally agreed with me that knowledge of a consequence causes you to behave in certain ways and not in others. It doesn't matter the way in which you came to know the consequence.

IIn a causally closed, deterministic world there is no you making prior decisions; that also is a rationalization after the fact, or an illusory epiphenomenon, if you like. — John

This makes no sense. Are we talking about "deterministic" differently? My determinism includes the will as a causal power in the world. It's quite obvious that my will causes things to happen. It is also quite obvious that "external" (or causes that aren't my will) have an influence on my decisions. I don't make distinctions between physical and mental causes. How else do you explain your will influencing the will of others? How is it that we have "leaders" that others follow if will isn't a causal influence? It's just that the choices you make, are the one's you were designed to make in every circumstance due to the experiences you've had up to that moment of decision, and how you were designed.

I'm not arguing for this position just trying to elucidate its logic for you, so you can see that the logic of the idea of moral responsibility is not and cannot be a compatible logic. This is because the logic of moral responsibility says that your decisions and acts must have their origin outside the causal order, but that is impossible if the causal order is closed. — John

This is preposterous. Again, the will is part of the causal order. There is a decision-maker and then there is the information one has access to make that decision. The information one has is dictated by one's experiences over time. This accounts for how we make mistakes where we made a decision in which we never intended to harm, but we did. This is because we didn't have access to the information that would have prevented the harming. We only have a limited amount of information, and time, in which to make a decision. This is what makes our decisions deterministic.

It's not exclusively one way or the other. At least some people, with some actions, will hesitate because of possible consequences. But others, or even the same people, with at least some actions, will act far more impulsively, sometimes where they have little control over their actions, especially with outbursts, anger, etc., and they won't consider the possible consequences at all, even though they might be otherwise aware of those possible consequences. — Terrapin Station

This just means that consequences are subjective. What is a consequence for one, isn't for another. You have to find that negative consequence that is harmful enough to the actor to prevent them from acting. Fining $100 is more harmful of a consequence to a poor person than to a wealthy person. A stranger not trusting you is less harmful than your best friend not trusting you. So you may perform that act with the stranger, but not with your best friend.

, how do you validate your beliefs and ideas? In validating them aren't you turning them from being subjective to objective? Isn't that what "validating your beliefs and ideas" implies?

That's the example of a paradox that you're providing? The "paradox" fails to take into account that I can drink the water and eat the hay before I die. Being rational, I see that it is the waiting to make a decision that would mean my death. Fortunately, it takes time to die of thirst and hunger (several days). Therefore, I wouldn't wait, I'd consume both before I die therefore preventing my death. Death (the problem) is easily avoidable because you can consume both before you die. This isn't a paradox at all.

It's you that appears to be not up on the subject. Statements implying strong emergence are statements about our understanding not about the universe itself.

↪Harry Hindu
By removing the intent from punishment, you remove causation (final cause). This is what you said before:

What we are doing in punishing someone is simply inserting a cause to change their behavior, and others, in the future. — Harry Hindu


If you remove the intent (final cause), you no longer have reason to use the words "cause" or "causation", in accordance with what andrewk was arguing. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Please, rephrase. Maybe Andrewk could do a better job of making his own case?

Exactly. You value certain people's trust more than others. Losing their trust would be a dire consequence that causes you to think twice before doing something that would jeopardize losing that trust. — Harry Hindu

That's not true. The idea of losing someone's trust doesn't cause me to think, I am thinking all the time anyway. It may be one of the many things which I will consider within my thoughts, but there is no such causation. Neither does punishment cause me to think in any particular way. Your argument is nonsensical. Punishment and consequences have no such causal power. — Metaphysician Undercover

Give me a break, MU. You do know what the phrase, "think twice" means, no? Here, let me help you because you seem to be having a very difficult time with using your terms and understanding commonly used metaphors:
https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=think+twice+meaning&oq=think+twice&gs_l=serp.3.0.0i71k1l8.0.0.0.3174.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1..64.serp..0.0.0.VRiqmNQyaHk

So what you are saying is that you would make the same decision if you weren't aware of the negative consequences as you would have if you were aware of the negative consequences that would follow your act?

If you were about to perform some practical joke on your best friend and your best friend noticed what you were going to do before you did it and said, "If you do that, I'm not going to be your friend anymore.", that wouldn't prevent you from doing what you were going to do? That information - that your best friend will no longer be your friend - is causing you to re-think performing that action.

Sure there would be practical outcomes that result from praising and blaming behavior, just as there are from any behavior. In a deterministic world things are not done for reasons but accompanied and rationalized by reasons and everything that happens is what it is and never could have been otherwise. — John

So you don't have reasons for what you do? You don't have intent prior to behaving in some way? My intent doesn't occur after I behave in some way. I intend to communicate my idea in my head to you prior to me typing in out on the screen and clicking submit. If I didn't then how did the ideas in my head get converted to scribbles on a screen with my forum name next to it?

In any case my point was not about behavior at all but about attitudes and feelings of praise and blame. — John

How are attitudes and feelings of praise and blame useful without the actual act of praising or blaming?

I'm amazed that you would agree but then be amazed at what I'm suggesting, which is what you agreed with.

Why do you need papers describing what I just wrote? Making observations and integrating what you see with the rest of what you know to form hypotheses and theories in order to make predictions is the basic process of "science", not providing links to papers. I provided a hypothesis and evidence. What more do you want? — Harry Hindu

↪Harry Hindu
You said 'We all instinctively seek to eliminate our subjective view in favour of an objective one...'

I don't accept this.

What is the scientufic, and/or naturalist, case for this instinct. On what evidence does it rest? — mcdoodle

What are you, a broken record? If you ask the same question, I'm going to supply the same answer. Do you really need a "scientist" to tell you that it's instinctive for animals to have sex, or can you observe this for yourself? I described the basic process of "science" which, like philosophy, anyone can do. You don't have to be a professional scientist or philosopher to do science and philosophy. Observing a shared behavior of all members of a species would imply that this behavior is instinctive. Look around you at all the people that attempt to legitimize their ideas and beliefs by getting others to agree with them. Pointing to the number of people who believe as they do is often used as evidence that what they believe is true. It's illogical, but still a behavior that we all engage in. Just look at this forum.

Perhaps your question is loaded with prejudice. I would ask ''Is the universe rational?" Paradoxes are aplenty. Has rationality provided solutions to them?

That said I don't mean that we should give up on rationality wholesale. I only want to suggest the possibility of a higher order of thinking. — TheMadFool

What paradoxes? Rationality has provided many solutions - evolution by natural selection being one of the best ones.

Of course you can't give up on rationality. You can't help but be rational if you want to communicate with other people and have them understand you.

How is consciousness emergent? You have colors, shapes, sounds, smells, feelings and attention. What else is there to consciousness? — Harry Hindu


Classic. — Sivad

That's your response to that and the rest of my post?

How is consciousness emergent? You have colors, shapes, sounds, smells, feelings and attention. What else is there to consciousness?

Consciousness itself is a model of the world. The emergence of new properties as the result of smaller "particles" interacting at smaller scales is a product of the model, not a real feature of the universe. We use light to see and light interacts with different things at different size scales differently. Our brains use this information in light to create a visual model of the world. As as model, it isn't a perfect view of the world. Emergence is a kind of illusion our mind creates out of the information we get from light in the environment.

Again you've shackled your mind into thinking that irrationality is the only other option. — TheMadFool

Again, you've avoided answering the question I posed: What solution has irrationality every provided?
If I'm asking a question, I haven't shackled my mind. I leaving it open for you to change it with the answer to my question.

I'm not too sure but the word ''conjecture'' is quite commonplace in the two champions of rationality - science and math. If I've understood it correctly ''conjecture'' means, in layman terms, a simple guess. A guess by definition is NOT rational as it isn't arrived at through logical thinking. Would you call this irrational? Or would you, in the least, abstain from quick judgment about this matter? The normal process is to check if a given conjecture is true or false after it is made. According to you this would be irrational but it's a normal and often used procedure in science and math.

Personally, I think there's another way, as yet undiscovered, to understand our world. I have no idea what it is but it's there somewhere, perhaps hidden in our subconscious mind. — TheMadFool

Irrationality is a feature entropy. You can have chaotic thoughts without the application of some energy, or willpower, to direct them into something meaningful and logical. Thinking logically is harder than thinking illogically.

What is ironic is that you keep making rational statements in your effort to show that irrationality can provide answers in the same way rationality can. — Harry Hindu

Indeed I do. That's a conundrum a rational mind can't deal with, hence your comment. However, just to make a point, an irrational mind can easily take it in its stride. I'm not suggesting we become irrational. All I'm saying is a more powerful thinking tool may exist. — TheMadFool

I wouldn't equate "thinking" with anything but being "rational" or "logical". If you aren't being rational or logical, then you aren't thinking, or at least not thinking properly.

I quite agree belief and position-sharing is what I read. I'm amazed you would suggest that this being 'plain to see' is 'scientific evidence' for an 'instinct' of any kind. I would expect papers, hypotheses and evidence. You're an advocate for naturalism, surely that's what you'd expect too? — mcdoodle

I'm amazed that you would agree but then be amazed at what I'm suggesting, which is what you agreed with.

Why do you need papers describing what I just wrote? Making observations and integrating what you see with the rest of what you know to form hypotheses and theories in order to make predictions is the basic process of "science", not providing links to papers. I provided a hypothesis and evidence. What more do you want?

The logic of praise and blame entails that the person to be praised or blamed for some act or achievement is the unconstrained agent and origin of the act or achievement. If every act of a person is determined wholly by factors beyond their control; whether that be genes, social conditioning, neuronal activity or whatever, then there can be no rational justification for praising or blaming them.

Trust or distrust, approbation or disapprobation, may be emotionally emotionally driven, in which case it cannot be rationally justified. — John

Of course there can be rational justification for praising or blaming someone in a deterministic world. Praising and blaming causes changes in behavior in the future. It's the logic of praising or blaming someone after the fact, that I don't get. Why praise or blame a "free agent" (and what does "free agent" mean, anyway?)? Isn't it future decision-making and behaviors that we are trying to change? Isn't that why we try to make the consequences of other's actions known to them - so that the one's making a decision will consider the consequences as part of making the decision?

If not, then wouldn't it be a punishment if someone distrusted you after something you did that you are being blamed for? Yes, or no? — Harry Hindu

No, I explained this. The fact that one dislikes what another person does, does not imply that the act of the other was carried out as punishment. I do not like a lot of things which a lot of people do, but it does not follow that these things are punishment to me. "Punishment" implies intent to punish, on the part of the punisher. As I explained, distrust is not intended as punishment, it is intended as protection for oneself from the other. — Metaphysician Undercover

Fine. We can substitute the word, "punishment" with "consequences". Punishment is a kind of consequence. I did use the word, "consequences" in my previous post to make the same argument, so your argument doesn't do anything to take away from my assertion that knowledge of the consequences causes changes in behavior and decision-making.

Some people I would not like them to distrust me, others I don't care if they distrust me. — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly. You value certain people's trust more than others. Losing their trust would be a dire consequence that causes you to think twice before doing something that would jeopardize losing that trust.

I don't understand how meaning isn't objective being that we all instinctively seek to eliminate our subjective view in favor of a more objective one - one where we all have the same meanings for the same observations - where we all test the hypotheses of others' to find if we find the same causes to what we observe. — Harry Hindu

I wonder if you could point us to the scientific evidence for this 'instinct'. — mcdoodle

The scientific evidence is plain to see. Look right in front of you at what you are reading as virtually every member on this forum, in every thread, make numerous attempts to share their beliefs and positions as they attempt to get others to agree with them.

Not for me they are not the same. These named things are the result, or consequence of holding one responsible. Responsible means that one is accountable. Blaming and such only occur posterior to an act which one is held accountable for. I other words, being accountable, (responsible), is necessarily prior to blame, judgement, etc.. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sheesh, MU. Can you use the dictionary, please?

Merriam-Webster definition of "blame":
1 : to find fault with

2
a : to hold responsible
b : to place responsibility for

That's not true. In fact, I think it's nonsense. Distrust is held for the protection of oneself, not to punish another. The fact that the one being distrusted may not like being distrusted does not necessitate the conclusion that the distrust is being held for the sake of punishment. I can't imagine distrust being held for the sake of punishment, that seems like a misunderstanding of "distrust" to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

How is it nonsense? Answer the question I posed. Would you like others to distrust you, yes or no? If not, then wouldn't it be a punishment if someone distrusted you after something you did that you are being blamed for? Yes, or no?

This is complete nonsense. First, punishing someone, unless it's a youngster just learning habits, rarely prevents the person from carrying out a similar act in the future. In most cases, the adult who misbehaves will continue to do so regardless of punishment. Does getting a speeding ticket prevent you from speeding again? If that were the case, we could get rid of all the speeders by handing out tickets. Second, blaming someone without punishing that person is extremely useful, because it allows you to remember something about that person's character. This information will be very useful in your future decision making concerning dealings with that person. — Metaphysician Undercover

If what I said is nonsense, then I have to question your existence as a social human being. It has been in my experience throughout my over 40 years of life that, if you give people a taste of their own medicine, then they stop doing what it is that they are doing that you don't like. They may continue to do it to others, but they won't do it to you any more.

Adults are like children in that they need consequences to adjust their behavior. Adults can be rehabilitated, or change their behavior as a result of the consequences of their prior actions. The problem with consequences comes when they aren't applied consistently. I guarantee you that if every speedster received a ticket every time they sped, then yes, they would stop speeding. If they were rich, then they might be able to afford the tickets and it wouldn't be much of a consequence because it doesn't place enough of a negative impact on them. Rich people would have to be fined more for it to begin to affect their behavior.

This is the problem with some adults today - that they weren't raised by parents that were consistent in their application of consequences when they were young. As adults, they think they can do what they want without any consequences.

WHEN is twice two makes five useful or "charming"? — Harry Hindu

When things combine to make more than the sum of their parts. — Sivad

What things combine to make more than the sum of their parts? Examples, please.

The ultimate moral question comes down to which person has more rights to achieve their goals than others? I'd love to hear both the rational and irrational answer to that question.

I'd love to hear any question (and most questions that make sense are assembled in a logical and sensible way) that has been solved with irrationality - just one example. It seems to me that only nonsensical questions can be answered nonsensically, but then what use are those questions and answers? — Harry Hindu

It seems you're satisfied with the current version of rationality we have. Any ''problem'' that arises you dismiss it as something wrong with, for example, initial assumptions or some other failing of the domain you're investigating. I see nothing wrong with that BUT there's an alternative you're completely ignoring. Could rational thinking itself be the culprit? As a fundamental doubt what I'm saying is not new at all. History has many instances of alternative modes of inquiry - mysticism is a case in point. Also Zen Buddhism. — TheMadFool

In other words, you don't have one example of a question that irrationality has answered. What is ironic is that you keep making rational statements in your effort to show that irrationality can provide answers in the same way rationality can.

The ''disagreement'' in moral issues not simply a matter of opinion. Each side claims to be right and reasonable despite some cases leading to contradictory conclusions. — TheMadFool

Each side claiming to be right is a matter of their opinion. The cases leading to contradictory conclusions is is a result of there being no objective moral code. Each person has their own goals that may come into conflict with another. The ultimate moral question comes down to which person has more rights to achieve their goals than others? I'd love to hear both the rational and irrational answer to that question.

I'd love to hear any question (and most questions that make sense are assembled in a logical and sensible way) that has been solved with irrationality - just one example. It seems to me that only nonsensical questions can be answered nonsensically, but then what use are those questions and answers?

Holding one responsible means to recognize the individual as a cause. It may entail many things, blame, praise, judgement of guilt, trust, distrust, etc.. Whether or not punishment is due is not necessitated, and this requires another judgement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Blaming, praising and judgement of guilt are the same as holding someone responsible. So that would be circular. Trust and distrust would be the same as providing a positive or negative consequences to the person who performed the action. Distrusting someone is a punishment. Would you like it if others distrusted you and wouldn't that change the way you behave in the future?

What use is blaming someone without punishing them (creating a negative consequence as a result of their action in order to prevent those actions in the future)? In my experience, simply blaming people isn't useful. You have to supply a negative consequence in order to prevent future acts, or they just end up doing it again.

They are simply rules for human beings to follow in order to stay in line with the cultures they are born in. — Harry Hindu


Some would disagree. Thus the ''failure'' of reason in the field of morality. — TheMadFool

What a pitiful argument.

I believe in unicorns. Some would disagree. Thus the "failure" of reason in the the field of the existence of unicorns. :-}

Dostoevsky was a literary fiction writer. You're interpreting his idea here philosophically, rather than in a literary way. What I meant when I brought up the quote is that I'm in agreement with Dostoevsky when he chooses to willfully rail against rationality as being the only source of truth, or the only understanding of reality. — Noble Dust

More nonsense. In your first sentence you say that I'm interpreting his idea philosophically (well, we are in a philosophical internet forum). Then in your second sentence you imply that he is using the phrase as a philosophical attack on rationality. Duh! Which is it?

Another well known Dostoevsky quotes goes something along the lines of, 'If it was proved that Christ never existed, I'd rather go with Christ". The idea is that the sheer profundity of something like a backlash against rationality, or the profundity of divine Grace, are things that are sufficient for some men (men and women of great intellectual poise) to willfully throw away this modern reliance on rationality; to willfully rail against it; to rage against it. Indeed, to function, mentally, philosophically, within a rational realm doesn't avail itself to anything outside of rationality. So it's a self-defeating system that scrutinizes everything within it's own set of rules, without allowing for the possibility of new, or forgotten, or overlooked rules. In other words, rationality, strictly in the way you're using it, doesn't make room for creativity. — Noble Dust

It sounds to me that the person who says and believes such a quote is simply upset that Christ doesn't exist and will believe in Christ anyway in order to rebel against the line of thinking that exposed the truth. This is a great example of being delusional - of believing in something in the face of all the logic and reason that informs you otherwise. Being delusional is equivalent to being illogical and nonsensical. Not only that but it does nothing to bring people together on something that they can agree on. What you seem to imply is that truth can be subjective. It isn't.

But there's no argument against that in this thread. — Noblosh

If you accept these particular definitions, you come to understand that one must conform to logic and reason in order to commit a logical fallacy which is called like that for this very reason. Then what's irrational is that which completely ignores logic and reason but that doesn't make it nonsensical because sense may still be derived from it. — Noblosh

Then why don't you be clear on what statements you have made that you consider illogical, but not nonsensical.

It's a huge question - the interplay between observation and hypothesis. The formulation of evolution and the age of the earth are textbook cases of scientific discovery. What it meant was that the world was far more ancient than had been previously thought, and that there were extinct species that lived hundreds of millions of years ago - something which prior generations didn't have a theory for, and therefore couldn't have explained. — Wayfarer

Great. So then we agree that what something means has to do with the causal relationship between what we see (the effect) and the cause of what we see.

But what I was commenting on was the role that the mind of the observing scientist plays in the understanding. I think that normally, science believes that the observing mind is not a part of the picture - that the evidence, ancient rocks, etc, exist in their own right, 'speak for themselves', as it were. Whereas, what I'm saying is that whatever evidence there is, even the most apparently concrete, exists in an interpretive matrix and gains its meaning from that. And that matrix is not wholly objective, it is not simply given, but is also 'constructed' in the mind of the observer - which is something that comes out strongly in philosophy of science, such as Kuhn, Feyerabend, Polanyi, etc. — Wayfarer

Of course the science believes that the observing mind is part of the picture. You haven't read any books on biology, and how the eyes function and interact with light, have you? Nor have you read anything about QM which implies that our own observations have an effect on what we are observing?

I don't understand how meaning isn't objective being that we all instinctively seek to eliminate our subjective view in favor of a more objective one - one where we all have the same meanings for the same observations - where we all test the hypotheses of others' to find if we find the same causes to what we observe.

The evidence exists objectively. It is the interpretation of the evidence which makes us right or wrong in understanding the meaning (the causal relationships) of what we observe.

Uhh.... How else do you hold someone responsible for their actions? What does "holding one responsible for their actions" mean, or entail?

Yes, but not nonsensical. — Noblosh

2+2=5 is nonsensical.

No, they don't, If I commit a fallacy then I'm misguided, not irrational. — Noblosh

Let me make it simple. If you commit a logical fallacy you would effectively be illogical.

What do you mean? — Harry Hindu
Assessing accordingly to reason and logic something that doesn't conform to reason and logic, doesn't conform to reason and logic. — Noblosh

In other words, when you aren't conforming to reason and logic, you are effectively useless and meaningless.

But it does have sense, irrationality is indeed charming. — Noblosh

I'd say that it's silly.

Sure, argument implies rationality but irrationality is not meaningless and contradictory, you're confusing it with fallacious reasoning. — Noblosh

"Irrationality" and "fallacious reasoning" mean the same thing.

I argue that arguing about irrationality is in itself irrational. — Noblosh

What do you mean? Any time that you make an argument for some state of affairs with the intent for others to agree, then you are being rational. In other words, anytime you make an argument for some state of affairs on an internet forum, with the intent for others to read and make sense of, you are being rational.

"Because" is related, because when we ask why of an act, we answer with "because". So "because" speaks of the reason for the act, but the actual cause of the act is the will of the individual. If the individual is not considered to be a freely acting "cause" of a situation, one cannot be held responsible for that situation. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not really about holding one responsible for their actions. Punishment is meant as a deterrent for that person, and others, from thinking about performing that action in the future.

We like to say that we are punishing someone for their actions because that implies the notion of free will, where we don't actually have it. What we are doing in punishing someone is simply inserting a cause to change their behavior, and others, in the future.

Personally, I'm with Doestovesky's Underground Man: "I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too." — Noble Dust

Nonsense. Really.

If you intend to make sense, or find a consensus, or make some argument of how things are, then you must be rational. If not, then whatever you say is meaningless and contradictory. WHEN is twice two makes five useful or "charming"? You mean that it is charming to be meaningless? Maybe so, but that itself is a rational statement - that to be charming, or silly is the term I would use, you can say 2+2=5. Being silly is only useful to get a laugh. Being rational is useful for pretty much everything you want to actually know.

You don't have to have been alive in the Jurassic age to know there were dinosaurs. But then, humans know such things, because we're capable of such knowledge. Dinosaurs never knew they were dinosaurs. — Wayfarer

Right. But how do we come to know such things? What does it mean to find the bones of some dead animal, that we've never seen, buried in ancient rock?

How has rationality failed in it's application to ethics?

What other "issues" have not yielded the "desired" results?

Results are results. If they aren't what you "desire" then maybe you should try to be more objective and understand that the results were never guaranteed to be desirable to the human species, or even life for that matter. So maybe that is why you don't see a "desirable" solution; because the knowledge acquired in other domains of investigation imply that there are no objective ethical rules. They are simply rules for human beings to follow in order to stay in line with the cultures they are born in.

The rings in a tree stump mean something to an observer who is capable of interpreting it.

The reason meaning is fundamental is not because it is a constituent of objects, but because it is a constituent of experience. We attribute meaning, and explain and understand the world in terms of meaning. This is the case whether or not it exists in the sense that the objects of scientific analysis exist. In that sense it is epistemically prior to what we categorise as 'objectively real'. — Wayfarer

So, the rings wouldn't actually "mean" the age of the tree if an observer wasn't there to observe the rings?

It's funny then, that meaning becomes a process in which the observer never observed (the tree growing through each year, making each ring) only when the observer observes the effect (the multiple tree rings).

the natural world is all there is — Hugh Harris


Define 'natural world' — lambda

He just did. It's all there is.

Everything around you, you, everything beyond what you can see and that has a causal relation with everything that you do see and with yourself.

How is it that you can acquire knowledge of some cause by observing it's effect? Andrewk seems to say that we never possess knowledge of some cause, just some explanation. Is he conflating knowledge with explanations?

Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. What do the rings in a tree stump mean? They are the result of how the tree grows throughout the year and represent the age of the tree. Meaning and information are one and the same. Effects carry information, or meaning, about their causes.

Even if that were true the obvious solution would be to cut compensation for shareholders and executives rather than working people for less than a living wage. That would be happening if people had an effective labor movement. That's how it was not so long ago, the size of the current wealth gap is unprecedented in modern history. We can afford it, we just opt to allow the obscenely rich to keep the lion's share of the surplus. — Sivad

Even then, there isn't enough money that we can take away from the obscenely rich to pull everyone out of poverty. Who do you choose to keep in poverty? Like I said, we either make everyone poor, or keep things like they are with some tweaks.

I think that because it's true. The money supply has to expand with the economy or deflation sets in. — Sivad

Dollars are worthless when there aren't enough resources to sustain the population. Even if everyone had a million dollars, it would do them no good when there isn't enough food and living space for everyone. The ink and the paper to print money has to come from somewhere and that isn't infinite. The problem is that socialists seem to think that resources are infinite. How "idealistic".